The "no gc" crowd

[dennis luehring]

Am 09.10.2013 16:30, schrieb Manu:
> On 9 October 2013 17:31, Walter Bright <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/9/2013 12:29 AM, Manu wrote:
>>
>>> Does anyone here REALLY believe that a bunch of volunteer contributors can
>>> possibly do what apple failed to do with their squillions of dollars and
>>> engineers?
>>> I haven't heard anybody around here propose the path to an acceptable
>>> solution.
>>> It's perpetually in the too-hard basket, hence we still have the same GC
>>> as
>>> forever and it's going nowhere.
>>>
>>
>> What do you propose?
>>
>
> ARC. I've been here years now, and I see absolutely no evidence that the GC
> is ever going to improve. I can trust ARC, it's predictable, I can control
> it.
> Also, proper support for avoiding the GC without severe inconvenience as
> constantly keeps coming up. But I don't think there's any debate on that
> one. Everyone seems to agree.
>

just a question:

how should ref count locking be done - only for shared?
all non shared pointers don't need to be thread-safe - or?